Just curious if anyone has ever heard that term.  I just heard it today i think for the first time.

What I had heard before is that you can be held partially at fault for an auto accident if you have a reasonable chance of avoiding it and didn't act.

That is what the "Last clear chance doctrine" refers to.  In short, if someone else is about to cause an accident even if you have the right-of-way, and you do nothing to avoid it, then the accident is at least partly your fault.

With dash cams today  recording your travel, location, speed, when you brake, etc., it may be easy to see whether or not you hit your horn, hit the brakes, tried to move out of the way, or any other attempt to avoid the accident.  If you tried to avoid it at the "last clear chance," then you should not have to share in the blame.

Before dash cams were common, any eye witnesses on the scene told the investigators whether they saw or heard you doing anything to avoid the accident.  Also, investigators will look for tire marks to show you hit the brakes even though anti-lock brakes might prevent that now.

The doctrine is apparently used in court to assign partial blame.  In short, even if you're in the right by law, you can still be held liable for damages if you did nothing to try and avoid the accident.

I haven't heard of that term.

And I didn't know we could still be held partially liable even if we had the right of way.

As if driving within the laws isn't hard enough, I guess we have to look out for the reckless, the stupid, and the clueless.  Oh and the arrogant, ainokea types.

Defensive driving to the nth power.

Driving sucks nowadays.

I haven't heard of that term.

And I didn't know we could still be held partially liable even if we had the right of way.

As if driving within the laws isn't hard enough, I guess we have to look out for the reckless, the stupid, and the clueless.  Oh and the arrogant, ainokea types.

Defensive driving to the nth power.

Driving sucks nowadays.

The example in the video showed a pickup who was required to let a semi go first as the pickup merged right.  The pickup would have had to come almost to a complete stop to get behind the semi.  The center lane semi didn't bother to warn him with his horn, and he didn't bother to brake in order to give the pickup more room.

What happened next was pretty brutal for all 3 trucks, but especially the pickup.

https://youtube.com/shorts/J6ShtLJRy_o

I heard that the duty to avoid an accident regardless of right-of-way became a "thing" due to insurance companies.  They prefer drivers avoid accidents rather than refuse to yield right-of-way to someone else clearly in the wrong.

This is a stupid if it's on the books. One swerves to avoid the car and end up hitting the other car and is 100% at fault now.  That's why I hate slow drivers, now I have to go around you and risk hitting a car in my blind spot.

This is a stupid if it's on the books. One swerves to avoid the car and end up hitting the other car and is 100% at fault now.  That's why I hate slow drivers, now I have to go around you and risk hitting a car in my blind spot.

You're at fault if you swerve and hit another car, but you can still go after the car that made you swerve -- even if you never made contact with  that car.

You just need evidence and the info required to track them down.  I doubt they are going to hang around and accept responsibility.

#GetADashCam